SCDSS v. Durden

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

South Carolina Department of Social Services,
Appellant,

v.

Kaitlynn Durden, Timothy Gray, and Deanna Durden,
Defendants,

Of whom Kaitlynn Durden and Timothy Gray are
Respondents.

In the interest of a minor under the age of eighteen.

Appellate Case No. 2025-000024

Appeal From Horry County
Melissa J. Buckhannon, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-301
Submitted August 12, 2025 – Filed August 22, 2025

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Ashley April Milan, of Conway; and Alwyn Taylor
Silver, of the South Carolina Department of Social
Services, of Georgetown, both for Appellant.

Kaitlynn Durden, of Aynor, pro se.
Timothy Gray, of Aynor, pro se.

Heather Marie Moore, of Axelrod & Associates, PA, and
Michael Julius Schwartz, of Russell B. Long, PA, both of
Myrtle Beach, for the Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: The South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS)
appeals the family court's dismissal of its removal action. On appeal, DSS argues
the family court erred in dismissing the action because DSS retained the statutory
authority to file a family court action. We reverse and remand.

We hold the statute does not limit DSS's authority to petition the family court for
removal of a child based on the status of an administrative appeal filed pursuant to
section 63-7-1430 of the South Carolina Code (2010). See Stoney v. Stoney, 422
S.C. 593, 594 n.2, 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 486 n.2, 487 (2018) (confirming the
standard of review of family court matters is de novo, with the exception of
procedural and evidentiary rulings, which are reviewed for an abuse of discretion);
S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Scott, 438 S.C. 400, 413, 883 S.E.2d 229, 236 (Ct. App.
2023) ("[T]he family court has exclusive original jurisdiction over abuse and
removal proceedings."); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-920(A)(1)-(3) (Supp. 2024)
(requiring DSS to investigate reports of suspected child abuse or neglect and
determine within sixty days whether the report should be designated as "indicated"
or "unfounded"); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-930(B)(1) (2010) ("Indicated findings
must be based upon a finding of the facts available to [DSS] that there is a
preponderance of evidence that the child is an abused or neglected child.");
§ 63-7-1430(A) ("If [DSS] determines that a report of suspected child abuse or
neglect is indicated and [DSS] is not taking the case to the family court for
disposition, . . . [DSS] shall provide notice of the case decision by certified mail to
the person determined to have abused or neglected the child. The notice must
inform the person of the right to appeal the case decision and that, if he intends to
appeal the decision, he must notify [DSS] of his intent in writing within thirty days
of receipt of the notice."); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1660(A) (2010) ("[A]t any time
during the delivery of services by [DSS], the department may petition the family
court to remove the child from custody of the parent . . . if [DSS] determines by a
preponderance of evidence that the child is an abused or neglected child and . . .
cannot be safely maintained in the home . . . ."); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1420
(2010) (detailing the procedure to be followed in instances of simultaneously
occurring family court proceedings and administrative appeals of DSS's abuse or
neglect determinations). Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the family court
for a hearing on the merits of the removal complaint.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.1

WILLIAMS, C.J., and THOMAS and CURTIS, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.